William Houston and others, and Francis Fisk and others, Plaintiffs in error, v. The City Bank of New Orleans, 6 How. 486

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case is brought here by a writ > of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State, of Louisiana, under the twenty-fifth

section of the act of 1789. The record is voluminous, and nécessarily so from the nature of the controversy in the State courts. But the following

summary statement contains all the facts material to the question now before this court upon-the writ of error. In 1842, Thomas Banks, a citizen of New Orleans, was declared a bankrupt under the act of Congress to establish a ■uniform system of bankruptcy, and F. B. Conrad appointed his assignee. At the time of his bankruptcy he was the owner of certain real property in New Orleans, called Banks’s Arcade, upon which he had executed three several mortgages, all of them outstanding and. unsatisfied at the time he became a bankrupt'.

The first was to the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company; the second to the Carrollton Railroad Company ; and the third to. the City Bank of New Orleans. Upon the application of the assignee, the District Court of the United States ordered those mortgaged premises to be sold, and directed that the mortgages should be cancelled, and the property sold free from encumbrance, rendering to the parties interested their respective priorities in the proceeds.

It was accordingly sold, and purchased by the appellants; and they having complied with the terms of sale, conveyances have been made to them by the assignee, and possession delivered. Before the money was paid by the purchasers, there were some proceedings in the State, courts in order to obtain the actual cancellation of these mortgages in the office in which they were recorded. But these proceedings are not material to the question before this court, and if is unnecessary to. state them.

After the. sale was made and reported by the assignee, the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, which held the eldér mortgage, filed a petition in the District Court, praying that the proceeds of the sale might be paid over to that ■ bank; the whole amount for which the property was sold being insufficient to satisfy the debt due oh that mortgage.

The said bank had, it'appéars, before this application was made, consented to the sale by the assignee, and agreed that the mortgages in its favor should be cancelled, for the purpose of giving titles to the purchasers, reserving its rights >to be. paid first out of the proceeds. But neither the Carrollton Railroad Company nor the City Bank of New Orleans appeared in the District Court in any of the proceedings hereinbefore mentioned, although regularly notified.

Nór did either of them exhibit or prove any claim against the bankrupt’s estate, nor assent or object to the sale, or to any of the proceedings therein. .- Subsequently, however, and after the proceedings upon this subject in the District Court had been' completed, and the purchasers had complied with the terms óf sale, and received their titles from the assignee, and been placed, in possession of the premises, the City Bank of New Orleans, which held the third mortgage, instituted a suit • in the Commercial Court of the State, for the purpose of charging the property in the hands of the purchasers with the money due on its mortgage-..

The purchasers resisted the claim, upon the ground that they were entitled to hold the property free and discharged from this encumbrance, under the sale made' to them by- the assignee, as hereinbefore stated. And the Commercial Court having decided in favor of the validity of this defence, the bank appealed, to the Supreme Court of the State, where the question was raised and argued, whether, under the act of .

Congress establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy, the purchasers ‘ were entitled to hold the premises free and discharged from the mortgage to' the City Bank. .Upon this question the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Commercial Court, and adjudged that the property should be seized by the sheriff, and sold to satisfy the demand of the bank. And it is this judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana that, is now before this court for revision. The record manifestly presents a case within the. twenty-fifth

section of the act of Congress of 1789, and the jurisdiction of this court has not been disputed. The authority of the District Court of the United States to order the sale of the property free from and discharged of the encumbrances, as mentioned in the proceedings, was drawn in question, and the decision of the Supreme Court of the State was against the validity of the authority thus exercised by the District Court. And this is the only question upon which this court is author- • ized to pass judgment; for the same

section of the act of 1789,. which gives jurisdiction in the cases therein enumerated, forbids it to be exercised ovér any other question which may have •arisen in the case, ot been decided by the State court. The questibn, then, to be decided by this court is simply this: — Are the purchasers under thé sale made by the assignee of Thomas Banks, as hereinbefore stated, under the authority of the District Court, entitled to hold the property free and discharged from the mortgage and'.encumbrance of the City Bank ?

With every respect for the learned State court which has decided against the right of the purchasers, we cannot persuade • ourselves that it can be either necessary or proper, at this day, for this court, in deciding á case like this, to enter into an argument upon the construction of the bankrupt law, in order to vindicate its judgment. .

The power of the District CoUrt . over mortgages, in cases of- bankruptcy, was fully argued and considered in the two cases reported in 3 Howard, 292, and 426, as appears by the opinions delivered by the court, and the opinions of the justices who dissented. - But.whatever difference of opinion existed as to some , of the propositions maintained in these cases by the majority of the court, there has been no division of opinion upon a question like the one presented in this record.

And the court are unanimously of opinion, that the sale made by the assignee of the property in question is valid, and that the purchasers are entitled to hold it free and discharged from the mortgage to the City Bank, and from all other encumbrances mentioned in the proceedings. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana must •therefore be reversed! Order.

This causé came on to .be heard on the transcript of the. record from the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel, On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that thé judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and that this cause he and the same is hereby remanded to. the said Supreme Court, to he proceeded with in conformity to the opinion of this court, and as to law and justice shall appertain.